Benefit fraud

Lanzarote1938

dktreesea wrote: »

But sure that applies to all benefit recipients? How many people choose to work part time and claim benefits when they could work full time? How many self employed people choose to work for less profit than the full time NMW, enabled by having a generous benefits system that will top up their incomes instead? How many people choose to rent rather than scrimp and save up to buy a place, because all or part of their rent is paid for by housing benefit? Or choose to have more children so they don't have to go back to work and can stay on income support?

Anyone who manipulates and engineers their circumstances to claim benefits is cheating the taxpayer.

dekaspace

dktreesea wrote: »

Dekaspace, I'm sorry for all the things you have gone through, but your life experiences really aren't that different from a lot of people. People who rent often find themselves moving every six months or a year, end up in unsuitable properties, have bad neighbours etc. And benefits these days are certainly not a reliable cash flow. They can be stopped at the drop of a hat, plenty of people who have done nothing wrong can end up temporarily (we hope!) destitute. If you had death threats from someone you should have got the police involved.


The best thing you could do for yourself, imho, is try to get to the bottom of your mental health issues by your own efforts and try to get a part time job. Even one two days a week - at least you would have a reliable income.

True but its not the first time someone has said to me maybe things have been my own fault when its more a combination of bad luck, low income meaning hard to find somewhere, mental health and disability meaning I cannot defend myself against problems etc.

The most recent illegal eviction from again a guy who thought he was a wannabe gangster, the one who locked me out for 2 weeks beforehand and stole my stuff, left me a voicemail the morning of eviction stating to watch my back, he has family in area and will find out where I live, and send people round (so not directly death threats but a threat of violence hinted at)

I went to police and said I was illegally evicted, had theats on phone and all due to LL not collecting rent, police response was "well you should of paid him the rent you owed him then" Even though I tried explaining the LL never turning up to collect it except when it suited him and not giving me bank details to do a standing order despite requests on phone and every time I saw him and the usual "its a civil matter"

With me its a chicken and a egg scenario with mental health, just as its hard to see the line between that and my autism, I think the autism affects my perception and mental health is affected by that, then the mental health problems seep back into my autistic way of thinking so its a vicious cycle.

Even though now it seems I am getting a council flat, I don't know if that will be the end of the issues but at least the rent is cheaper, its a safer tenancy and more likely to get help with repairs and communal things.

Smartsaver7

I'm sorry, really!! how does one forget they are receiving a substantial income stream and forget to declare it for several months.

So every week since starting work when you worked out your finances including the ESA you just forgot to declare you were working . I am sure it was pointed out to you that if your circumstances change you would not be entitled to mine and other tax payers support

It's called benefit fraud and yes you can go to prison, it's due to people abusing the system that more stringent checks have been brought in and some who deserve financial support don't now get it:(

sangie595

nannytone wrote: »

in regards to this thread, the ''precious non workers' are sick disabled.

it isn't about what they WILL do, it is about what they CAN do

Well this "precious worker" is sick and disabled. And, apart from various parts that don't work as they should, two days out from a total hip replacement. Yes, it is sometimes about what they "can" do, but it is also sometimes about what they "will" do. My client list is full of people working very hard to stay in employment, and I'd say 8 out of 10 of them have employers who are equally keen to retain them. I also know people with 1/10th of the disability they have who wouldn't work if you handed them a job.

The woman down the road from me has high social anxiety which means that she cannot cope with any social situation and is completely unable to leave the house. Which is funny, because she goes shopping every day and loves shopping. Her husband, who is disabled through bad knees, has no problem walking to the pub, which is a good mile each way. And not all jobs need people to walk anyway.

And that's the problem. The policy debate shouldn't turn around people like them, who are frankly screwing the system for every penny, and everybody knows it. But it does. Because of people like them and the OP here. Working people resent paying for them. Unemployed people who want to work resent them for getting more money when there is precious little wrong with them. And people who genuinely cannot work should resent them because it is them that are undermining their benefits.

I'm sorry, but not every "sick disabled" claimant is either sick nor disabled, any more than every "jobseeker" is seeking a job! And many people will continue to support the governments initiatives to reduce benefits because they know this. I am personally not one of them - I would like to see higher benefits, but for those who really need them. All these benefits are supposed to be a safety net. They are not that as long as they condemn people to poverty. But nor are they that when people abuse them to fund a lifestyle without working. We no longer live in a society where people feel that there is dishonour in claiming benefits and do everything they can to get into work. Times have changed. But they have changed a little too much when it is an accepted view of a significant section of society that living off benefits for ever is the right thing to do.

dktreesea

dekaspace wrote: »

True but its not the first time someone has said to me maybe things have been my own fault when its more a combination of bad luck, low income meaning hard to find somewhere, mental health and disability meaning I cannot defend myself against problems etc.

The most recent illegal eviction from again a guy who thought he was a wannabe gangster, the one who locked me out for 2 weeks beforehand and stole my stuff, left me a voicemail the morning of eviction stating to watch my back, he has family in area and will find out where I live, and send people round (so not directly death threats but a threat of violence hinted at)

I went to police and said I was illegally evicted, had theats on phone and all due to LL not collecting rent, police response was "well you should of paid him the rent you owed him then" Even though I tried explaining the LL never turning up to collect it except when it suited him and not giving me bank details to do a standing order despite requests on phone and every time I saw him and the usual "its a civil matter"

With me its a chicken and a egg scenario with mental health, just as its hard to see the line between that and my autism, I think the autism affects my perception and mental health is affected by that, then the mental health problems seep back into my autistic way of thinking so its a vicious cycle.

Even though now it seems I am getting a council flat, I don't know if that will be the end of the issues but at least the rent is cheaper, its a safer tenancy and more likely to get help with repairs and communal things.

Unfortunately, renting from a private landlord is fraught with pitfalls.

dekaspace

Lanzarote1938 wrote: »

Anyone who manipulates and engineers their circumstances to claim benefits is cheating the taxpayer.

I think it really depends, when I was working before I was better off working 12 hours than 20 in the sense working 20 meant I got no housing benefit and after rent was paid would get under £40 a week for food, utilities, transport, and everyday bills like clothing, toiletries etc.

In fact the amount was more like £20 a week.

If I worked 12 hours I would be entitiled to full housing benefit and have about £60 a week left over after taxes were paid.

So 8 hours less and 20-40 a week better off, also meant free prescriptions, much lower council tax to pay etc.

I ended up taking as much overtime as possible so would be 7-10 days straight of working and if overetime was availble doing as much as 12 hours a day, shame overtime was paid about 6 weeks in arrears.

I'd rather of done the 12 hours, knew rent was paid and not have to worry about waiting 6 weeks if I had enough to survive until the following month.

I can understand the employer giving 20 hour contracts (these days it would be zero hours) because they went through periods where they had more staff than work and other etimes when they had more work than staff so this way overtime was available when you needed it (of course things like Easter and Christmas)

It also meant the employers didn't need to give you a break on a 4 hour shift so they had no downtime.

I would of rather done 35 or 40 hours knowing I had that every week than 20 hours knowing I couldnt have enough every week, or 12 hours and benefits.

tomtom256

dekaspace wrote: »

I think it really depends, when I was working before I was better off working 12 hours than 20 in the sense working 20 meant I got no housing benefit and after rent was paid would get under £40 a week for food, utilities, transport, and everyday bills like clothing, toiletries etc.

In fact the amount was more like £20 a week.

If I worked 12 hours I would be entitiled to full housing benefit and have about £60 a week left over after taxes were paid.

So 8 hours less and 20-40 a week better off, also meant free prescriptions, much lower council tax to pay etc.

I ended up taking as much overtime as possible so would be 7-10 days straight of working and if overetime was availble doing as much as 12 hours a day, shame overtime was paid about 6 weeks in arrears.

I'd rather of done the 12 hours, knew rent was paid and not have to worry about waiting 6 weeks if I had enough to survive until the following month.

I can understand the employer giving 20 hour contracts (these days it would be zero hours) because they went through periods where they had more staff than work and other etimes when they had more work than staff so this way overtime was available when you needed it (of course things like Easter and Christmas)

It also meant the employers didn't need to give you a break on a 4 hour shift so they had no downtime.

I would of rather done 35 or 40 hours knowing I had that every week than 20 hours knowing I couldnt have enough every week, or 12 hours and benefits.

And presumably you declared the extra income overtime granted and had various overpayments caused by this.

dekaspace

tomtom256 wrote: »

And presumably you declared the extra income overtime granted and had various overpayments caused by this.

I never said I got benefits when I was working, I said if I worked less hours I would of been entitled to benefits.

dktreesea

sangie595 wrote: »

Well this "precious worker" is sick and disabled. And, apart from various parts that don't work as they should, two days out from a total hip replacement. Yes, it is sometimes about what they "can" do, but it is also sometimes about what they "will" do. My client list is full of people working very hard to stay in employment, and I'd say 8 out of 10 of them have employers who are equally keen to retain them. I also know people with 1/10th of the disability they have who wouldn't work if you handed them a job.

The woman down the road from me has high social anxiety which means that she cannot cope with any social situation and is completely unable to leave the house. Which is funny, because she goes shopping every day and loves shopping. Her husband, who is disabled through bad knees, has no problem walking to the pub, which is a good mile each way. And not all jobs need people to walk anyway.

And that's the problem. The policy debate shouldn't turn around people like them, who are frankly screwing the system for every penny, and everybody knows it. But it does. Because of people like them and the OP here. Working people resent paying for them. Unemployed people who want to work resent them for getting more money when there is precious little wrong with them. And people who genuinely cannot work should resent them because it is them that are undermining their benefits.

I'm sorry, but not every "sick disabled" claimant is either sick nor disabled, any more than every "jobseeker" is seeking a job! And many people will continue to support the governments initiatives to reduce benefits because they know this. I am personally not one of them - I would like to see higher benefits, but for those who really need them. All these benefits are supposed to be a safety net. They are not that as long as they condemn people to poverty. But nor are they that when people abuse them to fund a lifestyle without working. We no longer live in a society where people feel that there is dishonour in claiming benefits and do everything they can to get into work. Times have changed. But they have changed a little too much when it is an accepted view of a significant section of society that living off benefits for ever is the right thing to do.

I never actually said workers were precious, but rather was referring to people who didn't work because they were being precious about what they were prepared to do, rather than just taking on whatever they could get so they were bringing a wage into the house rather than languishing on benefits.


I don't think as a nation we can afford higher benefits. I would like to see housing benefit, for example, restricted to 80% of the actual rent or the LHA whichever was lower. If people aren't paying anything towards their housing what is their incentive to move out and get a cheaper place that they can afford?

Lanzarote1938

dktreesea wrote: »

I don't think as a nation we can afford higher benefits. I would like to see housing benefit, for example, restricted to 80% of the actual rent or the LHA whichever was lower. If people aren't paying anything towards their housing what is their incentive to move out and get a cheaper place that they can afford?

I think something like this will happen. I am a firm believer that people do not value what they don't pay for.